constructive systems engineering cost model – …sunset.usc.edu/events/2002/cocomo17/valerdi1--...

17th International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost ModelingOctober 2002

USC

C S E University of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Software Engineering

COSYSMO-IPCOnstructive SYStems Engineering Cost

Model – Information Processing

“Headed in a new direction…”October 24, 2002

Dr. Barry BoehmRicardo ValerdiGary ThomasDon ReiferUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Software Engineering


USC


Outline• Workshop Objectives• Background on COSYSMO-IP • Outcomes from PSM Meeting (July 2002)• Issues and Answers• Overlap between COSYSMO & COCOMOII• EIA632 & ISO15288• Raytheon myCOSYSMO Prototype• Data Collection Process


USC


Objectives of the Workshop• Reach consensus on resolving the issues• Converge on scope of COSYSMO-IP model• Address INCOSE issues• Address definitions of model parameters• Discuss data collection process• Promote involvement by Affiliates• Define next steps for CSI and INCOSE

conferences


USC


Past, Present, and Future

Initial set if parameterscompiled by Affiliates

2001 2002 2003

Performed First Delphi Round

PSM Workshop

Meeting at CII Forum

Meeting at CCII Forum

Working Group meeting at ARR


USC


Future Parameter Refinement Opportunities

2004 20052003

Driver definitions Data collection (Delphi)

First iteration of model

Model calibration


USC


COSYSMO-IP: What is it?The purpose of the COSYSMO-IP projectis to develop an initial increment of aparametric model to estimate the cost ofsystem engineering activities during systemdevelopment.The focus of the initial increment is on thecost of systems engineering for informationprocessing systems or subsystems.


USC


Candidate COSYSMO Evolution Path

Inception Elaboration Construction TransitionOper Test & Eval

1. COSYSMO-IP

2. COSYSMO-C4ISR

3. COSYSMO-Machine

4. COSYSMO-SoS

IP (Sub)system

C4ISR System

Physical MachineSystem

System of Systems (SoS)


USC


What Does COSYSMO-IP Cover?• Includes:

– System engineering in the inception, elaboration, and construction phases, including test planning

– Requirements development and specification activities

– Physical system/information system tradeoff analysis

– Operations analysis and design activities

– System architecture tasks• Including allocations to

hardware/software and consideration of COTS, NDI and legacy impacts

– Algorithm development and validation tasks

• Defers:– Physical system/information

system operation test & evaluation, deployment

– Special-purpose hardware design and development

– Structure, power and/or specialty engineering

– Manufacturing and/or production analysis


USC


Outcomes of PSM Meeting• Agreement on ConOps• Agreement on COSYSMO-IP scope• Convergence of drivers• Revised driver definitions


USC


Issues and AnswersAnswerCOSYSMO-IP first

Currently front-end; negotiable

Reduced from 7 to 4

Reduced from 17 to 12

IP systems include HW

Candidate starting point identified

IssueApplication scope

Life Cycle scope

Too many size drivers

Conflicting cost drivers

Too software-oriented

Overlap between COSYSMO and CII


USC


Current COSYSMO ScopeCandidate starting point

Development EIA Stage Inception

Elaboration

Construction

Transition Management

14

12

10

14 Environment/CM

10

8

5

5 Requirements

38

18

8

4 Design

19

36

16

4 Implementation

8

13

34

19 Assessment

8

10

24

24 Deployment

3

3

3

30 TBD TBD TBD

= COCOMOII = COSYSMO-IP

When doingCOSYSMO-IP andCOCOMOII, Subtract grey areasprevent doublecounting.


USC


Mapping of Old to New COSYSMO-IP Drivers

New (4)Old (7)

Number of System Requirements Number of Major InterfacesNumber of Technical Performance

MeasuresNumber of Operational ScenariosNumber of Modes of OperationNumber of Different PlatformsNumber of Unique Algorithms

Size

Fac

tors

Requirements understanding

Architecture complexity

Number of System Requirements Number of Major Interfaces

Number of Operational Scenarios

Number of Unique Algorithms


USC


Mapping of Old to New COSYSMO-IP DriversNew (5)

Requirements understandingArchitecture complexity Level of service requirementsLegacy Transition complexity COTS assessment complexity Platform difficulty Required business process

reengineering Technology Maturity Physical system/information

subsystem tradeoff analysis complexity

App

licat

ion

Cos

t Fac

tors

# of TPMs# of Platforms

Old (9)

Requirements understandingArchitecture complexity Level of service requirementsMigration complexity

Technology Maturity


USC


Mapping of Old to New COSYSMO-IP Drivers

New (7)Old (8)

Number and diversity of stakeholder communities

Stakeholder team cohesion Personnel capability Personnel experience/continuity Process maturityMultisite coordination Formality of deliverables Tool supportTe

am C

ost F

acto

rs

Reqs Und

Stakeholder team cohesion Personnel capability Personal experience/continuity Process maturityMultisite coordination Formality of deliverables Tool support


USC


EIA632 & ISO15288

Garry Roedler, INCOSE/LMCO


USC


EIA632/COSYSMO-IP MappingCOSYSMO-IP Category EIA632 RequirementSupplier Performance 3Technical Management 4-12Requirements Definition 14-16Solution Definition 17-19Systems Analysis 22-24Requirements Validation 25-29Design Solution Verification 30End Products Validation - COTS 33a

EIA632 Reqs. not included in COSYSMO-IP are: 1,2,13,20,21,31,32,33b


USC


Raytheon myCOSYSMO Prototype

Gary Thomas, Raytheon


USC


Data Collection Process• Next Delphi Round is scheduled for Dec ’02• Driver feasibility/level of guidance survey

results• Other experiences


USC


Other Open Issues• Business Process Reengineering driver• Difference between # of Modes and # of

Scenarios• Schedule duration driver• Involvement of Commercial Companies


USC


Points of ContactDr. Barry Boehm [[email protected]](213) 740-8163

Ricardo Valerdi [[email protected]](213) 740-6470

Donald Reifer [[email protected]](310) 530-4493

Websiteshttp://sunset.usc.edu


USC


Backup Charts


USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversNumber of System RequirementsThis driver represents the number of requirements that are typically taken from the system or marketing specification. A requirement is a statement of capability containing a normative verb such as “shall” or “will.” It may be functional, performance, feature, or service-oriented in nature depending on the methodology used for specification. System requirements can typically be quantified by counting the number of applicable “shall’s” or “will’s” in the system or marketing specification.

- Poor understanding of what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements

- General understanding of what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements

- Good understanding of what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements

- Unfamiliar- Generally familiar- Familiar

- High degree of requirements overlap

- Some overlap- Little requirements overlap

- Hard to understand - Takes some effort to understand- Simple to understand

- Hard to trace to source- Can be traced to source with some effort

- Traceable to source

- Poorly specified- Loosely specified- Well specifiedNo. of System Requirements

DifficultNominalEasy


USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversNumber of Major InterfacesThis driver represents the number of shared major physical and logical boundaries between system components or functions (internal interfaces) and those external to the system (external interfaces). These interfaces typically can be quantified by counting the number of interfaces identified in either the system’s context diagram and/or by counting the significant interfaces in all applicable Interface Control Documents.

- Poorly behaved- Predictable behavior- Well behaved

- Low cohesion- Moderate cohesion- Cohesive

- Highly coupled- Loosely coupled- Uncoupled

- Ill defined- Loosely defined- Well definedNo. of Major Interfaces



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversNumber of Operational ScenariosThis driver represents the number of operational scenarios that a system must satisfy. Such threads typically result in end-to-end test scenarios that are developed to validate the system satisfies all of its requirements. The number of scenarios can typically be quantified by counting the number of end-to-end tests used to validate the system functionality and performance. They can also be calculated by counting the number of high-level use cases developed as part of the operational architecture.

- Tight timelines through scenario network

- Timelines a constraint- Timelines not an issue

- Many end-to-end scenarios (> 30)

- Modest no. of end-to-end scenarios (10 < OS < 30)

- Few end-to-end scenarios (< 10)

- Ill defined- Loosely defined- Well definedNo. of Operational Scenarios



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversNumber of Unique AlgorithmsThis driver represents the number of newly defined or significantly altered functions that require unique mathematical algorithms to be derived in order to achieve the system performance requirements. As an example, this could include a complex aircraft tracking algorithm like a Kalman Filter being derived using existing experience as the basis for the all aspect search function. Another example could be a brand new discrimination algorithm being derived to identify friend or foe function in space-based applications. The number can be quantified by counting the number of unique algorithms needed to support each of the mathematical functions specified in the system specification or mode description document (for sensor-based systems).

- Simulation and modeling involved

- Some modeling involved- Library-based solution

- Dynamic, with timing issues- Timing a constraint- Timing not an issue

- Persistent data- Relational data- Simple data

- Recursive in structure with distributed control

- Nested structure with decision logic- Straightforward structure

- Difficult math (calculus)- Algebraic by nature- Basic math

- Many new algorithms - Some new algorithms - Existing algorithmsNo. of Unique Algorithms



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversRequirements understandingThis cost driver rates the level of understanding of the system requirements by all stakeholders including the systems, software, hardware, customers, team members, users, etc…

Full understanding of requirements, familiar system

Strong, few undefined areas

Reasonable, some undefined areas

Minimal, many undefined areas

Poor, unprecedented system

Very HighHighNominalLowVery low


USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversArchitecture complexity This cost driver rates the relative difficulty of determining and managing the system architecture in terms of Information Processing platforms, standards, components (COTS/GOTS/NDI/new), connectors (protocols), and constraints. This includes tasks like systems analysis, tradeoff analysis, modeling, simulation, case studies, etc…

Full understanding of architecture, familiar system

Strong understanding of architecture, few undefined areas

Reasonable understanding of architecture, some weak areas

Minimal understanding of architecture, many undefined areas

Poor understanding of architecture, unprecedented system



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversLevel of service requirementsThis cost driver rates the difficulty and criticality of satisfying the Key Performance Parameters (KPP). For example: security, safety, response time, the “illities”, etc…

Risk to human life

High financial loss

Some lossEasily recoverable losses

Slight inconvenience

Criticality

Really complexDifficult requirements

Moderately complex

Low difficultySimple requirements

Difficulty



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversMigration complexity This cost driver rates the complexity of migrating the system from previous system components, databases, workflows, etc, due to new technology introductions, planned upgrades, increased performance, business process reengineering etc…

Very difficult to upgrade

Difficult to upgradeIntroduction of requirements is transparent

N/AN/A



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversTechnology maturityThis cost driver rates the relative readiness for operational use of the key technologies.

TRL 9 - Mission proven

TRL 8- Concept qualified

TRL 7- Concept demonstrated

TRL 3 to 6- Proof of concept validated

TRL 1 & 2 - Concept defined

- Technology widely used throughout industry

- Proven through actual use and ready for widespread adoption

- Proven on pilot project and ready for roll-out on production jobs

- Ready for pilot use- Still in the laboratory



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversStakeholder team cohesion Leadership, frequency of meetings, shared vision, approval cycles, group dynamics (self-directed teams, project engineers/managers), IPT framework, and effective team dynamics.

Exceptional team cohesion, extraordinary leadership, strong team dynamics, and solid IPT framework

Strong team cohesion, effective leadership and strong team dynamics

Functional team, good leadership and team dynamics

Marginally effective team cohesion, some leadership and teamwork

No team cohesion, friction, lack of leadership



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversPersonnel capability Systems Engineering’s ability to perform in their duties and the quality of human capital.

90th percentile75th percentile55th percentile35th percentile15th percentile

Very HighHighNominalLowVery Low

Personnel experience/continuity The applicability and consistency of the staff over the life of the project with respect to the customer, user, technology, domain, etc…

10 years of continuous experience



1 year continuous experience, other technical experience in similar job

Less than 2 months



USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversProcess maturity Maturity per EIA/IS 731, SE CMM or CMMI.

Level 5Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1 (upper half)

Level 1 (lower half)

Extra HighVery HighHighNominalLowVery low

Multisite coordination Location of stakeholders, team members, resources (travel).

Interactive multimedia

Wideband electronic communication, occasional video conference

Wideband electronic communication

Narrowband e-mail

Individual phone, FAX

Some phone, mail

SITE: Communications

Fully locatedSame building or complex

Same city or metro area

Multi-city or multi-company

Multi-city and multi-national

InternationalSITE: Collocation

Extra HighVery HighHighNominalLowVery low


USC


Modified Rating Scales for DriversFormality of deliverables The breadth and depth of documentation required to be formally delivered.

Rigorous, follows customer requirements

Partially streamlined process, occasional relaxation

Some relaxationSome conformityGeneral goals


Tool support Use of tools in the System Engineering environment.

Strong, mature proactive SE tools integrated with process

Strong, mature SE tools, moderately integrated

Basic SE tools moderately integrated

Simple SE tools, little integration

No SE tools



USC


New (9)Number of System Requirements Number of Major InterfacesNumber of Technical Performance

MeasuresNumber of Operational ScenariosNumber of Modes of OperationNumber of Different PlatformsNumber of Unique Algorithms

Old (16)Si

ze

Requirements understandingArchitecture complexity Level of service requirementsLegacy Transition complexity COTS assessment complexity Platform difficulty Required business process

reengineering Technology Maturity Physical system/information

subsystem tradeoff analysis complexity

Cos

t

Number of System Requirements Number of Major Interfaces

Number of Operational Scenarios

Number of Unique AlgorithmsRequirements understandingArchitecture complexity Level of service requirementsMigration complexity

Technology Maturity


USC


# of Modes vs. # of ScenariosWireless Communications example

Modes:TDMACDMAGSMScan for channel

Scenarios:VoiceE911 E-mailWeb browsing